If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are currently viewing our forums as a GUEST.

This allows you to read, but not participate in our discussions.

This also prevents you from downloading attachments and seeing some of our specialized sub-forums.

Registration is free and painless and requires absolutely no personal information other than a valid email address.

You can register for our history forums here. [this reminder disappears once you are registered]

As stated, I try all scenarios: good, bad or ugly (and even those made with the HUD4). I tried the latest scenario release and have encountered the same type of problem as I have found in every single HUD4 scenario: the predominant game problem encountered with the HUD4 is the fact that many, Many, MANY weapons fail to fire.

Against my better judgement, I will give you this bug report as a freebie because it is not the purpose and function of players to be testing your scenario when such problems are so obvious. As per my policy with HUD4 scenarios, I played until I encountered the first database bug and then stopped because they are 100% avoidable and preventable.

The database error lies with the RUR-5A Mod 4 (Mk46m5) missiles. It is easily replicated by ordering the destroyer found in this scenario (Rommel) to fire on any submarine. The database says that the weapons are rated for submarines, but they will not fire at the target at any combination of range or speed that I could find. If you find an instance whereby this weapon fires, I would be happy to test your findings. Just to be clear, the database version is HUD 4 V 1.1 beta 10 and the files are dated 24/03/2012 11:54:08a.m. The scenario is dated 24/10/2012 17:37h

Just to save time and pre-empt the usual stupidity, saying that I should simply find another weapon that actually works in order to attack the submarine is as stupid as telling me to find another game that works and play it. You may as well be telling players to find a database that works in order to fire that particular weapon because this weapon works in the PlayersDB and other functional databases without any such faulty limitations.

Equally stupid would be to tell me to launch the weapon in Bearing-Only-Launch mode as this is NOT a solution to this problem, but only a work-around to this particular HUD4 database bug.

Lastly, the lame excuse of, "It has been fixed and will be released at some unspecific date in the future" is absurd and unacceptable. The scenario was released today and I am trying this scenario today with the database available today and not some future date when the database may or may not be fixed.

Go ahead. Fix this problem. Put up or shut up. If you don't, I'm going to be relentless and continue making darned certain everyone knows just how buggy and problematic HUD4 scenarios are. You have no right to inflict your abuse on players with such faulty scenarios and databases.

I see that, once again, when you do not receive the answer you seek, you fall back onto your usual tactic. That's not going to work here. As promised, I will be relentless. You've been called out, either put up or shut up. Since you will neither put up nor shut up, I'll be on hand to make certain that everyone learns how badly HUD4 scenarios work.

Anyone following this thread will see it easily:

1) You ask folks to try your scenario
2) Problems are reported along with a solution
3) You ignore the report and the solution. Instead, you keep asking for 'help',

The general community experience with the HUD4 has been very negative. Those who try the HUD4 will find it a waste of time due to the heaps of errors found within. The only logical choice is to ignore the HUD4 unless they have a surplus of time and enjoy the frustration of reaching dead-end bugs.

Comment

The database error lies with the RUR-5A Mod 4 (Mk46m5) missiles. It is easily replicated by ordering the destroyer found in this scenario (Rommel) to fire on any submarine. The database says that the weapons are rated for submarines, but they will not fire at the target at any combination of range or speed that I could find. If you find an instance whereby this weapon fires, I would be happy to test your findings. Just to be clear, the database version is HUD 4 V 1.1 beta 10 and the files are dated 24/03/2012 11:54:08a.m. The scenario is dated 24/10/2012 17:37h

This error does actually exist and has already been reported; Gunny is working on it. It should be fixed with the next release of the database.

This is a legitimate complaint. It is one of the real errors I have spotted over the months I've been using HUD-4 and it is quite annoying because the ASROC gives many Cold War ships a ranged weapon to use against submarines so it is likely to sometimes have an effect on gameplay.

Mind you, I still have no intention of putting up with rude behavior. I have no doubt that Mr. Hum is a talented and tireless database editor, but there are plenty of people out there who could do what he does. And they could do it without being rude and divisive.

Is there a list of actual, specific errors and bugs identified for the HUD-4? (I saw there is one for ANW.) That's something that can be reported, looked at, fixed, etc. Then real progress can be made.

As for the complaint of "it's not my job to report errors," that may be true, but if the error is not reported, it cannot be fixed. So, again, one can be part of the problem or part of the solution. I use the HUD-4 because I happen to like it. My experience is that the number of actual errors is quite low. (Believe me, I am too lazy to have stuck with the HUD-4 if the number of errors was as high as has been suggested.) But I also use it because I believe by writing scenarios I can find the errors that do exist and help make it better.

Comment

This error does actually exist and has already been reported; Gunny is working on it. It should be fixed with the next release of the database.

As stated previously, that excuse is pure nonsense and rates the same as AGSI's claim that bugs will be fixed in the 'next' release - for another $70. The scenario was released now, run now, and needs to work now, instead of some ficticious future date. If it only works with some hypothetical future release, then either don't release it or say when it should be played in the future i.e. "Do not Open until Christmas 2016"

Originally posted by Herman Hum

http://community.combatsim.com/index...st&pid=5147556
Lastly, the lame excuse of, "It has been fixed and will be released at some unspecific date in the future" is absurd and unacceptable. The scenario was released today and I am trying this scenario today with the database available today and not some future date when the database may or may not be fixed.

This is a legitimate complaint. It is one of the real errors I have spotted over the months I've been using HUD-4 and it is quite annoying because the ASROC gives many Cold War ships a ranged weapon to use against submarines so it is likely to sometimes have an effect on gameplay.

Actually, they all are as I deal in scientific fact and the immutable laws of physics and mathematics but it is nice to see that you think your agreement is necessary to validate a bug. However, you are right about the deleterious effect a faulty ASROC has on gameplay.

Mind you, I still have no intention of putting up with rude behavior. I have no doubt that Mr. Hum is a talented and tireless database editor, but there are plenty of people out there who could do what he does. And they could do it without being rude and divisive..

I have no intention of putting up with dishonest people who claim that the HUD4 is functional when it so obviously is not and then **** and moan about wanting help while they are really just looking for validation. Nor will I tolerate those whose only qualification is to claim, "It didn't happen" when there are videos, test files, crash reports, and images that show otherwise. It is true that anyone can fix bugs, make videos, write scenarios, edit databases, and help players. The difference is attitude, willingness, and effort. Oh, there are plenty who go around boast how great they are, proclaim their self-importance, and bemoan how Harpoon would collapse without them, but when it comes right down to actually doing anything, there are few who answer the call (and none are from the HUD world.)

Is there a list of actual, specific errors and bugs identified for the HUD-4? (I saw there is one for ANW.) That's something that can be reported, looked at, fixed, etc. Then real progress can be made.

Pretty pointless since Guerin is neither willing nor competent to fix the single ASROC bug he's currently facing; a list would just be gilding the lily.

As for the complaint of "it's not my job to report errors," that may be true, but if the error is not reported, it cannot be fixed. So, again, one can be part of the problem or part of the solution. I use the HUD-4 because I happen to like it. My experience is that the number of actual errors is quite low. (Believe me, I am too lazy to have stuck with the HUD-4 if the number of errors was as high as has been suggested.) But I also use it because I believe by writing scenarios I can find the errors that do exist and help make it better.

Glad you agree that it is the task of the database manager to ensure his database actually works and for the scenario writer to do the same for his designs. So long as neither you nor Guerin are willing to perform your designated roles, it is superfluous to inflict your problems on the community of players. The fact that you openly admit your laziness towards testing is something that has already been apparent from your conduct within these fora, the scenarios you release, and does not help your case.

1) Your bug report was made "ASROC won't fire" (Started by Mgellis, Nov 12 2011 03:13 PM)
2) Since then, you have *knowingly and deliberately* posted over 10 scenarios with subs vs. ships relying upon faulty non-functional ASROC
3) You have made no attempt to fix your scenarios
4) You have made no attempt to warn users of your problem
5) You continue to claim that HUD4 works and ask for unsuspecting human guinea pigs and victims

This intentional, wanton, and reckless disregard for the welfare of your users is the primary reason why you and HUD4 can never be trusted to do the right thing. If HUD were HiV, you would find yourself in serious hot water.

Comment

Pason-2: “Channel Engagement”
Scenario by Ralf Koelbach.
AAR by Mark Gellis
Played on November 4, 2012

Pason-2 comes with HUE. It was prepared for the HUD-4 (v1.1 b10) simply by opening it in the scenario editor and rebuilding all platforms; the revised scenario was then saved.

Scenario seems to load properly. I made a point of keeping an eye out for database errors. In this scenario, I saw no problems with weapons firing, ships not having any fuel, or any other database errors. I may have missed something, but nothing that was vital to the scenario.

Looks like a nice, simple “search and shoot” scenario.

13:01. I set up a simple zig-zag course up and down, north and south, across the mouth of the English channel (the scenario is set in 1992 and assumes the Soviet Union did not collapse), just to make myself a bit harder to target.

At 13:15, I put up a Seasprite. My first pair of flying eyes. I already have a couple of passive surface contacts, so I’ve got things to look at. The first one, close by, to the SE, is probably a merchant but I will make sure. I keep the chopper low and passive. I tweak the course to close on the contact.

At 13:43, the first contact it is identified as a Ro-Ro, and neutral. I will now turn northeast towards the other contact, which is more suspicious.

13:57…it is now clear that some of these ships are Soviet. I have an Azov and a Sovremenny. I am now going to use the chopper to get a better fix before I launch missiles. I put the chopper Very Low (11 m) to keep it hidden.

14:20. I have another clear identification, a Slava, but no clear fix on her position yet.

At 14:24, it’s clear a Grisha is in the group, too.

At 14:35, I’ve got a Bingo warning for the chopper’s fuel and it is heading home. I did get a clear fix on one ship but no ID. At least I know where they are, though. I will launch another helicopter and get a better fix.

14:41, I’ve got a Lynx 88 in the air, at VL, heading to the cluster of contacts.

15:30, I have a clear fix on an Azov…still “yellow,” but there is only one navy with an Azov, so I’m firing. Letting the chopper hover. Firing 15 anti-ship T-hawks.

15:50. Chopper on Bingo. Something (maybe the Slava?) just got clipped got clipped with missiles, but no clear data. I’m putting up another Seasprite and keeping everyone at passive. As far as I know, no one knows where I am yet.

At 16:42, I see an air contact! But it’s slow; it must be another chopper. I now have multiple ship contacts with clear identification and clear fixes on location. Firing more T-hawks.

At 16:50, Skunk 91 is still a mystery…I am closing on it. Wait…it’s an Udaloy.

17:05. I have lost another SeaSprite, but I know now where a lot of the bad guys are. And I’m still passive Emcon.

17:58. I am now setting an intercept course for the Soviet battle group. I think I’ve killed a couple of the smaller ships, but I cannot tell.

18:48. I am sending out another chopper at Very Low to get more clear information.

19:02. Chopper destroyed.

19:22. Putting up another chopper but sending it around and behind…perhaps I can avoid the cruisers and their SAMs? Again, keeping it passive and very low. If I can get them in Harpoon range before they know exactly where I am, I’ll have a real advantage.

20:01. Helicopter at Bingo and heading home. Sending another one up on roundabout southern course. No clear fix this time, but he lived.

21:25. Got a hard fix on a Grisha and a Tarantul. Firing Harpoons.

21:29. The helicopter is reporting hits on both the Soviet ships. Only two left and I’ve almost got a hard fix on position. Firing Harpoons now! A massive volley. But they’re shooting at me now, I think. Going Active and Weapons Free to deal with incoming missiles.

21:33. More harpoons at Azov. Both sides taking hits from missiles. I have only one damaged ship, though, the Rommel, and my SAMs are keeping their other missiles down.

21:36. I’m swinging the Seasprite by the cruiser to see - - chopper destroyed at 21:37:16!

21:38. Firing more Harpoons at the remaining Soviet destroyer; the cruiser is no longer moving.

21:45. Firing my last five Harpoons at the destroyer. Only one hit, but it is enough. He’s dead in the water.

Victory conditions achieved 21:59:55.

I seem to have fired on a neutral ship by accident! Tsk! I suspect the captain of the Kinkaid will be cleared, though, considering the circumstances (I can also “document” that I never fired if I did not have a clear ID on an enemy ship; the hit on the merchant has to be due to a navigation error on the missile or the ship just getting in the way by accident).

As for the cost, one damaged warship and four helicopters lost in exchange for two cruisers, two destroyers, one light frigate, and two missile boats, and seven helicopters. A definite win, although not without casualties.

This is a nice little scenario. Good pacing and suspense. Good action. Hard to win if you’re not careful, not too hard if you’re very cautious, as suggested in the orders. Good work, Ralf, and thanks!

Comment

Taking the Israeli side…looking for PLO boats…must sink them before they do bad things…

This scenario was prepared for the HUD-4 (v1.1 b10) simply by opening it in the scenario editor and rebuilding all platforms; the revised scenario was then saved.

Scenario seems to load properly. I made a point of keeping an eye out for database errors. In this scenario, I saw no problems with weapons firing, ships not having any fuel, or any other database errors. I may have missed something, but nothing that was vital to the scenario.

I did notice in the rebuilt scenario in the scenario editor that there were some odd behaviors, such as the air base disappearing whenever I switched to “display groups,” but showing up fine as its separate elements and with group and elements listed properly in the Order of Battle window. It did not seem to affect gameplay in any way, though. I am sure there is an interesting technical reason for this odd behavior, but as it did not affect playing the game I’m not going to worry about it.

6:00…scenario starts

I have three Saar 4 missile boats and four aircraft—a Hawkeye and 3 A-4s at Haifa. I’m putting up my Hawkeye and 2 A-4s up from Haifa. I’m leaving one A-4 in reserve. I’m sending the Hawkeye a little northwest of the Reshev…going active…wow, lots of contacts…I’m looking for the ones that seem to be heading towards Israeli ships…and I will send A-4s to look at them…

6:14. Swinging the Hawkeye by two ships nearest to my missile boats, worth the risk here…they are both Neutral. There are two fast-moving contacts to the north, so I’m sending an A-4 to check them out.

6:21. First contact is a dhow, neutral, going after second contact to the north. I have spotted another fast-moving contact to the West and am sending another A-4 to check it out.

6:23. The second northern contact is hostile and my A-4 takes him out without even waiting for me to give him orders—weapons free and all that. The A-4 is ordered to return to base because it has fired off all its weapons. I try to send it to do a little more scouting (it has plenty of fuel left) but it ignores my orders and goes home. I am not sure if this counts as "bug" or not, and I have no idea if it is caused by something in the database or in the game engine.

6:39. The contact to the West turns out to be hostile and the second A-4 sinks it and goes home.

6:40. I start searching the region with the Hawkeye, checking out as many contacts as I can. This continues until 7:13, when the third hostile contact identifies itself as hostile by shooting the Hawkeye down. Ack!

7:15. Harpoon missiles from the Yafo sink the third hostile contact.

8:14. Victory conditions achieved 8:14. I sank all three jihad ships and Haifa did not suffer any attacks.

On examining the scenario in the editor later on, it is interesting that the jihad had Osa II missile boats (who was stupid enough to sell these things to terrorists!?) and that both Syria and Egypt also had their own Osa II missile boats in the region. Doubtless, this is a trap being set for players; if one sees the terrorists have Osa II boats but simply starts to shoot at anyone who has an Osa II, you would end up hitting neutral ships and getting in trouble for it.

To sum things up, I would say this was a fun scenario, but perhaps not challenging enough. With three A-4s, it is too easy to find and sink all three jihad ships before they can get a shot on either Israeli missile boats or targets in Israel. I lost my Hawkeye, but that was just stupidity on my part. I should have kept the Hawkeye at a distance and used the A-4s to check out any specific suspicious contacts.

Comment

This scenario was prepared for the HUD-4 (v1.1 b10) simply by opening it in the scenario editor and rebuilding all platforms; the revised scenario was then saved.

Sorry...forgot to mention, for people unfamiliar with the scenario editor for Harpoon 3 ANW, this is a very simple process. You just use Edit --> Scenario Rebuild --> Rebuild All Units. So it's just one command. It's designed to make updating a scenario from one version of a database to a newer version of the same database simple.

Comment

Thank you. I have my own reasons for not wanting to respond to Herman (mostly, it just does not do any good).

I would like to keep letting people know about the HUD-4 and scenarios written for it because I really do think it's a good option for people who like Harpoon.

I welcome constructive comments on the database. I know there are some issues (although not all that many) but I also know the database editor is trying to fix them as quickly as he can when they are identified. As any errors are identified, I will pass them on to Gunny. I'm not the database editor, of course, but I do communicate with him on harpgamer. Or, if you want, join harpgamer and start talking with him, too. He wants to make the database as good as it can be.

Even more, I welcome comments on the scenarios themselves, particularly the ones I'm writing. I'm interested in how well they play, whether people find them plausible and challenging and fun. Do people enjoy them? What can I do to make better scenarios?

Comment

Thank you. I have my own reasons for not wanting to respond to Herman (mostly, it just does not do any good)

I see that you continue to ignore the errors openly found and reported within the HUD4 scenarios that make them unplayable. Until such time, it is pointless to use something that obviously does not work.

Comment

It's not the game or the functionality of anyone scenarios, it's that your both carrying on a personal feud on this website that supposed be for discussing games. Please carry on by email or Skype or something besides here. I have a pair of pistols if you want to go that route.